The results are indisputable, and speak for themselves. Watch Ferrer vs Berdych in Abu Dhabi 2012 for some aggressive tennis from Ferrer, who doesnt get his due on this forum. He can be aggressive, and despite claims to the contrary, he has a powerful forehand which is among the most accurate on tour. Also his serve is great and very consistent- he served something like 15 aces in his match vs Almagro in AO.

Del Potro won the USO.
Berdych was runner up at Wimbledon, beating Federer.
Tsonga was runner up at the Australian Open, beating Nadal, and has also beaten Federer at Wimbledon.

Is he more consistent than those guys? Yes. Better? Dont think so.

Click to expand...

I think it is also a matchup issue with the big 4, those other 3 guys don't rely so much on their wheels as Ferrer does and can hit through the top 4. Ferrer relies a lot on outmaneuvering his opponent and with the exceptional court coverage of the top 4 he is unable to do that. So against the top 4, yes those players are better.

But against basically all other players, Ferrer can be possibly considered "better" than them IMO. For example, I think Del Potro playing his very best level would still lose to Ferrer at his best (contrary to the popular belief). The players Ferrer has real trouble beating are those with exceptional movement, and the top 4 happen to be amazing in that category. Interestingly, other players Ferrer has trouble with are Monfils and Davydenko, two other exceptional movers outside the top 4.

It's not just a matter of him being more consistent than them, against 95% of the field he is actually a better player than Berdych, Tsonga, and Del Potro IMO. Just a bad matchup with the big 4.

I think it is also a matchup issue with the big 4, those other 3 guys don't rely so much on their wheels as Ferrer does and can hit through the top 4. Ferrer relies a lot on outmaneuvering his opponent and with the exceptional court coverage of the top 4 he is unable to do that. So against the top 4, yes those players are better.

But against basically all other players, Ferrer can be possibly considered "better" than them IMO. For example, I think Del Potro playing his very best level would still lose to Ferrer at his best (contrary to the popular belief). The players Ferrer has real trouble beating are those with exceptional movement, and the top 4 happen to be amazing in that category. Interestingly, other players Ferrer has trouble with are Monfils and Davydenko, two other exceptional movers outside the top 4.

It's not just a matter of him being more consistent than them, against 95% of the field he is actually a better player than Berdych, Tsonga, and Del Potro IMO. Just a bad matchup with the big 4.

Click to expand...

quoted for truth. Del Potroand Berd at their best could never beat Ferrer at his best, though Tsonga may be able to

quoted for truth. Del Potroand Berd at their best could never beat Ferrer at his best, though Tsonga may be able to

Click to expand...

While President's analysis is interesting and certainly have some merit to it, I do believe that a Delpo, Tsonga or Berdych playing as well as they can will beat a Ferrer playing as well as he can.

Why? We all agree that when on, they can 'hit their opponent off the court', 'take the racquet out of their opponents hands' and all those things.
Enough to be able to beat the Big Four even when they're not playing poor at all and even when they're playing very well (exhibit: Tsonga vs. Fed at Wimbledon)

Same should hold true against Ferrer.
Though his best may beat their best on clay (Delpo being the question-mark there).

While President's analysis is interesting and certainly have some merit to it, I do believe that a Delpo, Tsonga or Berdych playing as well as they can will beat a Ferrer playing as well as he can.

Why? We all agree that when on, they can 'hit their opponent off the court', 'take the racquet out of their opponents hands' and all those things.
Enough to be able to beat the Big Four even when they're not playing poor at all and even when they're playing very well (exhibit: Tsonga vs. Fed at Wimbledon)

Same should hold true against Ferrer.
Though his best may beat their best on clay (Delpo being the question-mark there).

Click to expand...

I can agree with you on Tsonga, he is a fantastic mover when he is playing well as well as a big hitter. But no, I don't think Del Potro playing his best would beat an on-fire Ferrer on any surface except maybe clay (ironically). I have watched every single Del Potro-Ferrer matchup, and it's obvious to me that Del Potro just doesn't have the footwork or speed to match Ferrer. It doesn't matter how hard he hits the ball because he is always going to be out of position anyway because Ferrer takes the ball so early and places it amazingly with his forehand. Watch Del Potro vs Ferrer at Wimbledon or Miami last year, they were really tutorials on how to beat a clumsy big hitter.

And I thought we were talking about playing at their best, I don't think Federer was playing well at all in the 2009 USO (well, after the first set and a half at least) for example.

He is better than them right now. Considering entire careers he is still the weakest of them all though.

Click to expand...

I can understand you saying that about Del Potro (although his USO win is literally the only thing he has over Ferrer, he is much worse in every other career metric), but for Berdych and Tsonga it makes no sense. They have 1 slam final each, Ferrer has none. Ok. But Ferrer has 6 slam SFs (far more than any of those guys), more titles, more weeks in the top 10, etc etc etc.

I can understand you saying that about Del Potro (although his USO win is literally the only thing he has over Ferrer, he is much worse in every other career metric), but for Berdych and Tsonga it makes no sense. They have 1 slam final each, Ferrer has none. Ok. But Ferrer has 6 slam SFs (far more than any of those guys), more titles, more weeks in the top 10, etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

Nothing Ferrer has achieved equals the value of a slam final IMO. If he had 3 Masters titles as opposed to 1 I would probably give it to him. However he only has 1, and it took him alot longer than Berdych and Tsonga winning theirs to even win that one. A career with a slam final and 1 Masters title > a career with no slam finals and 1 Masters title. Berdych and Tsonga also have more and bigger wins in majors. Ferrer only has 2 really, beating Nadal twice in a hard court slam (beating Murray at the French is no big win). Berdych has beaten Federer twice in fast court majors, and beaten Federer and Djokovic back to back at Wimbledon to make his final appearance there. Tsonga has taken out all of Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal in a major, and his run of wins to reach his Australian Open final was extremely impressive.

Lets be honest too, the big 4 are worried if they face Berdych, Tsonga, or Del Potro on a hot day in a big match. Well maybe not Berdych for Djokovic and Nadal, and maybe not Djokovic and Murray for Del Potro, but the rest there is definite fear they dont face those guys on a day they are firing on all cylinders. With Ferrer there is no fear, except Murray at the French but Murray at the French thus far knows he will probably lose to anyone in the top 8, and could potentially lose to anyone in the top 15 on a given day anyway.

Most of you so far seem to have missed one vital fact- as i posted in my first post, ferrer has leading head to heads against all of those guys, thus he is better than them.

Click to expand...

Roddick has a leading H2H with Djokovic. Thus he is better than him. Nadal has a 5-2 H2H with Federer on outdoor hard courts. Thus he is a better outdoor hard court player than Federer. Murray has a leading H2H with Federer and did only from day 1. Thus he is better than him. Doesnt just work like that.

Nothing Ferrer has achieved equals the value of a slam final IMO. If he had 3 Masters titles as opposed to 1 I would probably give it to him. However he only has 1, and it took him alot longer than Berdych and Tsonga winning theirs to even win that one. A career with a slam final and 1 Masters title > a career with no slam finals and 1 Masters title. Berdych and Tsonga also have more and bigger wins in majors. Ferrer only has 2 really, beating Nadal twice in a hard court slam (beating Murray at the French is no big win). Berdych has beaten Federer twice in fast court majors, and beaten Federer and Djokovic back to back at Wimbledon to make his final appearance there. Tsonga has taken out all of Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal in a major, and his run of wins to reach his Australian Open final was extremely impressive.

Click to expand...

Sorry I just don't think 1 major final cancels out 5 more major SF appearances, a WTF final appearance, many more titles, way more prize money, and a consistently higher ranking. Berdych in particular has little to no case, he has only beaten Federer once legitimately IMO in a slam (Federer was injured in Wimbledon 2010, that was evident from round 1).

A slam final is definitely not THAT much greater of an accomplishment than a slam SF, and when you take into account that Ferrer has 6 its a no brainer IMO.

Sorry I just don't think 1 major final cancels out 5 more major SF appearances, a WTF final appearance, many more titles, way more prize money, and a consistently higher ranking. Berdych in particular has little to no case, he has only beaten Federer once legitimately IMO in a slam (Federer was injured in Wimbledon 2010, that was evident from round 1).

A slam final is definitely not THAT much greater of an accomplishment than a slam SF, and when you take into account that Ferrer has 6 its a no brainer IMO.

Click to expand...

So we are discounting wins through injury. In that case Ferrers win at the 2011 Australian Open doesnt count either as that was clearly via injury, and one could even argue the 2007 U.S Open as well. Which leaves Ferrer with no big wins in slams left. Either way both Tsonga and Berdych have a more impressive collection of big wins in slams than Ferrer does without question, in addition to making a slam final while he didnt.

I see your point but I dont think years from now anyone will care about slam semis unless it is a record streak like Federer or Evert (and even then seemingly nobody cares about Everts streak, and might not Federers either when he retires). However for reaching a slam final you are atleast somewhat remembered. I actually do think a final is quite a bit greater than a semi, it means you are playing on the final day for a possible title vs not doing so. I would still probably go with Ferrer if Berdych didnt even reach another slam semi, but he has been in 2 other semis in addition to his slam final.

Ferrer is more consistent. And, I suppose you can debate either way if he's better than those guys are not.

The difference, IMO, and the point most people zero in on is that Ferrer is not capable of beating the Big 4. Those others guys are.

Everybody knows Ferrer is probably going to win all of his matches until he faces one of the top 4 guys. In that past, that mean QF's...with Rafa injured and his ranking up, he can make it to SF's now, and should he be lucky enough for one of them to get upset, he may even make a final. But, sooner or later, he'll have to play one of them, and he'll lose.

With the other guys, they may get upset, they'll probably get beat by Ferrer, but in a matchup against the Big 4...they might win. Probably won't, but they might. That puts them in unique company on the tour, because there few players who realistically have a chance to do that in a major, regardless of how bad the chance might be.

I can agree with you on Tsonga, he is a fantastic mover when he is playing well as well as a big hitter. But no, I don't think Del Potro playing his best would beat an on-fire Ferrer on any surface except maybe clay (ironically). I have watched every single Del Potro-Ferrer matchup, and it's obvious to me that Del Potro just doesn't have the footwork or speed to match Ferrer. It doesn't matter how hard he hits the ball because he is always going to be out of position anyway because Ferrer takes the ball so early and places it amazingly with his forehand. Watch Del Potro vs Ferrer at Wimbledon or Miami last year, they were really tutorials on how to beat a clumsy big hitter.

And I thought we were talking about playing at their best, I don't think Federer was playing well at all in the 2009 USO (well, after the first set and a half at least) for example.

Click to expand...

And Berd?
I cannot pretend that I have watched every Ferrer-Delpo match (and off the top of my head, I honestly don't remember watching any, but I think I must have seen at least one), but I'll take your word for it. Even though I don't get why Ferrer would be able to do something to him that the Big Four aren't doing

I didn't say Delpo beat Fed at his very best (Fed chose a pretty stupid tactic to say the least), but as Spinovic just pointed out:

As a fan of any of the Big Four, you're somewhere between mildly and very afraid when your fav. meets Delpo, Tsonga or Berd (minus Djoko and Nadal fans), but never really afraid when they meet Ferrer. That means something.

And Berd?
I cannot pretend that I have watched every Ferrer-Delpo match (and off the top of my head, I honestly don't remember watching any, but I think I must have seen at least one), but I'll take your word for it. Even though I don't get why Ferrer would be able to do something to him that the Big Four aren't doing

I didn't say Delpo beat Fed at his very best (Fed chose a pretty stupid tactic to say the least), but as Spinovic just pointed out:

As a fan of any of the Big Four, you're somewhere between mildly and very afraid when your fav. meets Delpo, Tsonga or Berd (minus Djoko and Nadal fans), but never really afraid when they meet Ferrer. That means something.

Click to expand...

The big 4 are able to do this to Del Potro as well, thats why all of them have dominating H2H's against him. I think that even if Del Potro were playing his best, he would fall against the big 4 every time if they were on-fire as well. Yeah he can get some wins against them when they aren't playing well, but he also gets wins against Ferrer in the same way. Del Potro is not really a hot and cold player like Tsonga and Berdych, its not like he loses to Ferrer when he is playing badly. He just gets outplayed, plain and simple.

And I already agreed with you that the 3 ball bashers are a bigger threat to the top 4, but I think its a matchup issue that Ferrer has rather than the other guys being better players. For example, if Andy Roddick were still a top player (to use an example of a highly ranked guy without exceptional movement) I think Ferrer would have just as good a chance of upsetting him (if not better) as Del Potro or Tsonga. Ferrer struggles against players with exceptional movement (top 4+Monfils and Davydenko), just as Del Potro struggles with great ball strikers who take the ball early (Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer) , just as Berdych struggles with heavy topspin, etc etc..

And Berd?
I cannot pretend that I have watched every Ferrer-Delpo match (and off the top of my head, I honestly don't remember watching any, but I think I must have seen at least one), but I'll take your word for it. Even though I don't get why Ferrer would be able to do something to him that the Big Four aren't doing

I didn't say Delpo beat Fed at his very best (Fed chose a pretty stupid tactic to say the least), but as Spinovic just pointed out:

As a fan of any of the Big Four, you're somewhere between mildly and very afraid when your fav. meets Delpo, Tsonga or Berd (minus Djoko and Nadal fans), but never really afraid when they meet Ferrer. That means something.

Click to expand...

Ferrer is as good as a bye for the Big 4. He pretty much admitted in an interview during this year's Aussie Open that he doesn't believe he can beat them. As mentally strong as he is vs. everyone else, he's the total opposite against those guys. He's beat before he even gets on the court.

And, you nailed it with that last statement. The trio of Tsonga, Berdych and Delpo are dangerous opponents for any of the Big 4.

Take the 2013 Australian Open for instance...how many people, when they saw the draw, thought Berdych was a more dangerous opponent for Djokovic in the QF's than Ferrer would be in the SF's? I know I did.

To be clear, I'm not arguing whether Ferrer is or isn't better than those other guys. He's certainly more consistent, and consistency does matter (as was stated). My point is that tennis right now is all about the Big 4 and who can challenge them. Ferrer cannot. He'll probably win until he plays one of them, but not only will he not beat them, he most likely won't even challenge them.

Interestingly, there isn't a drastic difference in the overall winning percentages of Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga and Delpo vs. the Big 4. Even more interesting is Delpo, the one with the worst percentage, is the one guy who has won a slam, beating Nadal and Federer to do so.

Ferrer is 14-46 overall. (Against Djokovic, Federer and Murray on anything but clay, he is 3-25. He's a combined 7-0 vs. Djoker and Murray on clay.) He's 3-9 in slams and 3-21 in Masters 1000 tournaments.

Tsonga - 12-32 overall, 4-9 in slams (with one win against each of the Big 4), 4-12 in Masters 1000

One thing to point out, Ferrer is in his 30's, his juicer career is almost over, and is a complete carrer being compared to incomplete careers. To compare to younger guys like delpo and tsonga who have had some serious injuries that clearly affected performance
is just stupid. Also would count any final like berdy had as a semi too. It didnt stop their but it was a semi appearance....

Interestingly, there isn't a drastic difference in the overall winning percentages of Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga and Delpo vs. the Big 4. Even more interesting is Delpo, the one with the worst percentage, is the one guy who has won a slam, beating Nadal and Federer to do so.

Ferrer is 14-46 overall. (Against Djokovic, Federer and Murray on anything but clay, he is 3-25. He's a combined 7-0 vs. Djoker and Murray on clay.) He's 3-9 in slams and 3-21 in Masters 1000 tournaments.

Tsonga - 12-32 overall, 4-9 in slams (with one win against each of the Big 4), 4-12 in Masters 1000

Not true. He may have more overall titles and a higher ranking but slams are the most prestigious events in current tennis and what keeps Ferrer down is that he's never made a slam final in his career (unlike Berd and Tsonga) or won a slam title (unlike Delpo). A bit like Davydenko, who had some nice success in best of 3 but never managed to break through in best of 5 (But Davy at least managed to win WTF and more than 1 master, which Ferrer still hasn't been able to do. Ferrer's claim to fame is still minor league domination at this point.)

So if the other guys can challenge and defeat fed, nadal and djoker why cant they beat david?

Click to expand...

they can not consistently challenge the top4 because they lack game. the have the strokes to beat them but not the movement. that means they need a golden day where they hit the lines on every stroke to beat them which sometimes happens but more often not.

for them ferrer is the same as playing the big 4. on a golden day they can beat david too but this happens rarely. this is because while ferrer lacks the strokes of the big 4 he is also very good at taking the ball early and making them run. note that ferrer doesn't play defensively against those 3, he wins by driving them out of the middle of the court and eliciting errors on the run just like the big 4 do usually (bird, tsonga and DP also mostly lose against the big4 it's not that he regularly beats them).

however against the big 4 this game by ferrer doesn't work because they have the strokes AND the legs so there is just nothing that david can do against them. unlike the 3 big hitters he doesn't have the option to hit through them.

but note that those big hitters are not really better players then ferrer. it is no coincidence that he is ranked ahead of them. it is not just big hitters lacking consistency. they have serious weaknesses which they will never overcome. however unlike ferrer they also have some strengths that sometimes compensate for their weaknesses. but this rarely happens the inconsistency is the norm not the exeption.

unfortunately many posters here don't play tennis so they don't understand why tsonga and co. cannot hit those 100mph winners consistently. it's about subtle things like balance, timing and footwork that only people who have played at some level (not necessarily super high but at least decent) can understand.

Not true. He may have more overall titles and a higher ranking but slams are the most prestigious events in current tennis and what keeps Ferrer down is that he's never made a slam final in his career (unlike Berd and Tsonga) or won a slam title (unlike Delpo). A bit like Davydenko, who had some nice success in best of 3 but never managed to break through in best of 5 (But Davy at least managed to win WTF and more than 1 master, which Ferrer still hasn't been able to do. Ferrer's claim to fame is still minor league domination at this point.)

Click to expand...

I would rank Davydenko above Tsonga and Ferrer (although probably not Del Potro) despite his failure to reach a slam final. In his case he has the WTF and several Masters titles, which is sufficient to overcome the lack of a slam final. Ferrers career however is not.

(1) "directly" better vs. better overall. Here's where a lot of the debate lies. Ferrer has winning H2H records vs Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro. I'd say the 2-1 lead over Tsonga is negligible (few matches, Tsonga won only Slam match), but the 6-3 record vs. Berdych, and 6-2 record vs. Del Potro (including the last 4 and the only 2 slam matches) is substantial.

My point isn't that direct H2H doesn't matter in a "better" analysis, it absolutely does. But, it's only one factor. "Better" generally means "better overall" - where a variety of factors are looked at. If it were only H2H - then James Blake, when he briefly had a 3-1 or 3-2 lead over Nadal in his H2H would have been "better", but that sounds ridiculous.

And what are those "other" factors? The things we talk about all the time - overall titles, Masters titles, Slam wins, other significant Slam performances, rankings, etc. And, as always, we can all disagree on how each factor should be weighted. Outside of his one Slam win, Del Potro has the weakest Slam resume of the 4 players, but he has a Slam win.

Looking at other factors, there's a very strong argument that Ferrer is indeed "better overall", but, again, some people understandably place enormous value on a Slam win, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

Again, who is better overall depends on how much value you place indivdual factors. Del Po has the worst h2H record vs Ferrer (2-6) of the three players, but he has the Slam win. It can be debated endlessly who history will consider the "better" player, and more likely, history won't have a definitive answer.

(2) Top level of play vs. general level of play.

This is another area that provides a foundation for the "better" debate. The stats show that Ferrer's level of play is generally better. But, some people understandably focus less on general level of play (not ignoring it completely, but just focusing less on it), and more on peak level. And, many people conclude that Tsonga, Berdych and Del Po peak level is higher and "better" than Ferrer, and that they pose more of a threat to the Big 4 when "on" than Ferrer generally does. Would Ferrer come back from 2 sets down at Wimbledon to beat Fed, would he come within a point of beating Djokovic at the French Open, would he beat Fed at the French Open or the USO - probably not.

I do beleive he isn't as much of a threat to the Big 4 on any given day as an "on" Tsonga or Berdych (not sure about Del Po at this point), but looking back at all of their resumes at how many times they beat Big 4 at a Slam, isn't it all fairly similar. Tsonga has beat all 4 at one time or another. Delpo beat Nadal and Fed in the same tournament. Berdych has beat Fed a couple of times. But, Ferrer himself has beat Nadal twice and Murray once.

Tsonga is the one guy I still think whose "on" game against the Big 4 is always going to be more of a threat than Ferrer, but if a "threat" doesn't end in a win, does it even matter in debating who is better?

So, I'm done with my mini-essay. I think you can easily argue Ferrer is better, but can understand why some people won't reflexively anoint him "better" than the others, or at least some of the others.

but looking back at all of their resumes at how many times they beat Big 4 at a Slam, isn't it all fairly similar. Tsonga has beat all 4 at one time or another. Delpo beat Nadal and Fed in the same tournament. Berdych has beat Fed a couple of times. But, Ferrer himself has beat Nadal twice and Murray once.

Click to expand...

Sorry but beating Murray at the French, especialy clay specialist Ferrer doing it, has to be put into a seperate category altogether. Ferrer is supposed to beat Murray on clay, it would have been an upset if he hadnt, so that is not a big win in anyway. Berdychs win over Murray at the French could also be tossed away as a big win.

Ferrer's been around the Top 10 for, what, seven straight years now? Top five for five straight years, I believe. Even was #4 in 2008.

Let's go over all the arguments they had on the guy.

"He's only made the semifinals of one slam, and just the quarters of others" - Now he's made six semifinals, and only Wimbledon's left in that area.

"He can't win a slam...he hasn't even won a shield" - Paris took care of that. Now it's "Now he's only won ONE shield".

"He'll never ever get to a grand slam final" - If Bercy was any indication, any tournament can have the weird and wacky things going on, like everyone falling out, and Daveed getting his chance.

What's going on with Ferrer is between his ears, and that's it. Not only beats, but SPANKS 6-10 in the world regularly. Murray, regardless of surface, doesn't really scare him. They've had some real good matches against each other over the years. A healthy Nadal? Ferrer doesn't believe it at all. A hurt Nadal? He's out for blood.

Djoker? On clay it's obvious by the record he believes he can win there. Any other surface...not a chance.

Federer could have all his limbs chopped off, and on life support with a priest reading his last rites, and Ferru won't believe he has a chance.

Right now, pure and simple, it has to do with belief. If Plies finds a way to get through that fear wall of his with any of the big monsters, and he finds a way to win, Daveed might get incredibly dangerous.

If not....20-30 titles in a career, a shield(or more), and number 4 in the world is a career so few have ever had, and he accomplished it. Nothing to sneeze at.

Sorry but beating Murray at the French, especialy clay specialist Ferrer doing it, has to be put into a seperate category altogether. Ferrer is supposed to beat Murray on clay, it would have been an upset if he hadnt, so that is not a big win in anyway. Berdychs win over Murray at the French could also be tossed away as a big win.

Click to expand...

Fair point. I think the most impressive wins by the "Second 4" over the Big 4 in Slams, in no particular order are:

Delpo over Nadal and Fed at the USO

Tsonga over Nadal at the AO and over Fed at Wimbledon. [I'd also note his near-win over Djoker at the French. I don't recall his earlier wins over Murray and Djoker at Slams, which, I'm assuming were before they had rounded into the champions they are now. Still impressive, but not as impressive as his other Big 4 wins.]